Case law

DeBattiste v. Anthony Laudadio & Son

167 Pa. Super. 38 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Jul 20, 1950

Streilein v. Vogel, 363 Pa. 379 , 69 A. 2d 97 ; Cunningham v. Pennsylvania R. Co., 352 Pa. 571, 575 , 43 A. 2d 825 ; Long v. Pennsylvania Truck Lines, Inc., 335 Pa. 236, 240 , 5 A. 2d 224 . … Winters v. State Workmen’s Insurance Fund, 136 Pa. Superior Ct. 293 , 7 A. 2d 112 ; Michetti v. State Workmen’s Insurance Fund, 143 Pa. Superior Ct. 458 , 17 A. 2d 712 ; Svestka v. Union Collieries Co., 149 Pa.

Strickland v. Baugh & Sons Co.

139 Pa. Super. 273 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Sep 28, 1939

Fillman v. Wolfe et al., 100 Pa. Superior Ct. 306 , and Benci v. Vesta Coal Co., 131 Pa. … The Board further finds as a fact that the 50 week period during which compensation was paid to the claimant under compensation agreement No. 3,326,462 expired on September 9, 1937.” 2 Bausch v.

Walker v. Aluminum Co. of America

185 Pa. Super. 355 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Jan 21, 1958

This, we believe, was a question of fact for the board. What was or was not a substantial portion for her support was also for the board. In Morris v. … Sandy v. *359 Hazle Brook Coal Co., 157 Pa. Superior Ct. 33 , 41 A. 2d. 432; Binkley v. Stone & Webster Engineering Corp., 156 Pa. Superior Ct. 381 , 40 A. 2d 132 . In Morris v.

Commonwealth v. Hoover

2011 Pa. Super. 42 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Mar 7, 2011

Commonwealth v. Brown, 449 Pa.Super. 346 , 673 A.2d 975, 978-79 (1996). … Brown, 673 A.2d at 979 . Thus, in Brown , we reiterated the well-established prohibition against using a defendant’s admission into an ARD program to attack the credibility of witnesses. Id. at 978-79.

Commonwealth v. Logan

172 Pa. Super. 365 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Jan 20, 1953

Commonwealth v. Amato, 148 Pa. Superior Ct. 151 , 24 A. 2d 681 ; Commonwealth v. Harrison, 137 Pa. Superior Ct. 279 , 8 A. 2d 733 . … Com. v. Wade, 156 Pa. Superior Ct. 88 , 39 A. 2d 460 .

Commonwealth Ex Rel. Margiotti v. Ortwein

132 Pa. Super. 166 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · May 2, 1938

Salary Board, 322 Pa. 138 , 185 A. 278 ; Haspel v. … Chief Justice Kephart in Milk Control Board v.

Dulsky v. Susquehanna Collieries Co.

116 Pa. Super. 520 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Dec 11, 1934

But nothing short of this will bastardize one born in wedlock: rex v. Luffe, 8 East 193; Foxcroft’s case, 1 Roll’s Ab. 359; Stigall v. Stigall, 2 Beach 256’; Dennison v. Page, supra. … Moska v. Moska, 107 Pa. Superior Ct. 72, 76 , 162 A. 343 .

Hamilton Unemployment Compensation Case

181 Pa. Super. 113 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Jul 17, 1956

Seroskie v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, 169 Pa. Superior Ct. 470, 472 , 82 A. 2d 558 ; Kaminski Unemployment Compensation Case, 174 Pa. Superior Ct. 242, 243 , 101 A. 2d 132 . … Superior Ct. 606, 608 , 82 A. 2d 671 ; Seroskie v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, 169 Pa. Superior Ct. 470, 473 , 82 A. 2d 558 .

Commonwealth v. Trolene

263 Pa. Super. 263 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Feb 9, 1979

From this evidence, extrinsic of Brown’s testimony, one could reasonably infer by a preponderance of the evidence, Commonwealth v. … As to the claim based on the attorney-client privilege between Lam and Brown, appellant has no standing to invoke it. Commonwealth v.

Mapp v. Philadelphia

215 Pa. Super. 101 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Sep 11, 1969

(Emphasis added) Thus, it is evident that the Board only considered the work patterns of appellant’s profession in general in determining whether she had suffered an unusual strain. In light of Hamilton v. … See Schrecengost v. Heilman Trucking Co., 174 Pa. Superior Ct. 299 , 101 A. 2d 417 (1953). This case is remanded to the Board for reconsideration in light of Hamilton v. Procon.

Williams v. Myers

3 Pa. Super. 481 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Feb 16, 1897

The defendant’s liability, if any, arose out of an express promise, that, if *484 the plaintiff would perform her contract with Brown, he, the defendant, would assume Brown’s liability for the moneys to be paid the plaintiff … Superior Ct. 642 ; Barker v. Fairchild, 168 Pa. 246 ; Galey v. Fitzpatrick, 171 Pa. 50 . The appeal is dismissed at the costs of the plaintiff, but without prejudice, etc.

Thomas v. James J. Skelly, Inc.

204 Pa. Super. 166 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Sep 17, 1964

The action of the board in granting or refusing a petition for a rehearing while an appeal is pending is statutory and lies within the sound discretion of the board. Conti v. Butler Consolidated Coal Co., 169 Pa. … The board, under the act had no power to grant a re4 hearing where the court had taken final action on the appeal. Newancavitch v. Pgh. Term. Coal Corp., 131 Pa. Superior Ct. 391 , 200 A. 137 (1938).

Marshall Unemployment Compensation Case

177 Pa. Super. 259 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Jan 14, 1955

In Layton v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, 156 Pa. … Milton Bank & Safe Deposit Co. v. Beachel, 174 Pa. Superior Ct. 276 , 101 A. 2d 142 . The board cannot extend the time fixed by statute for instituting an appeal.

Roberts, Admrx. v. J. Wanamaker

151 Pa. Super. 297 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Oct 7, 1942

The credibility of this evidence was for the board, not for the court below. As President Judge Keller pointed out in Walsh v. Penn Anthracite Mining Co., 147 Pa. … If defendant had appealed from the court’s original order reversing the board, we would have reversed and entered judgment for defendant on the board’s findings and dismissal. Strickland v. Baugh & Sons Co., 139 Pa.

Homestead Social & Beneficial Society Appeal

169 Pa. Super. 593 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Nov 15, 1951

See Turner v. Pennsylvania Liquor Control Board, 161 Pa. Superior Ct. 16, 19 , 53 A. 2d 849 . … for over fifty years, the Board’s order. of revocation was “too severe a penalty.”

Finch v. Jones & Laughlin Steel Corp.

198 Pa. Super. 389 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Jun 13, 1962

Nor do we perceive any merit in appellant’s argument that “the Board violated its duty to make specific find *395 ings of fact”, and that the record should he remanded for such purpose. Cf. Hager v. … Unless such capricious disregard of credible testimony appears, the findings of fact by the Board, based on adequate and competent evidence, will be sustained on appeal: Irvin v.

Beach Street Corp. v. A.P. Construction Co.

441 Pa. Super. 639 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · May 2, 1995

Potts Run Coal Co. v. … See Potts Run Coal, supra; Carlisle Borough v. Fladger, 157 Pa.Super. 206, 207-08 , 42 A.2d 187, 188 (1945) (citing McFadden v.

Gavandula v. RYAN BROTHERS

205 Pa. Super. 325 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Apr 15, 1965

Apker v. Croton Can Co., 150 Pa. Superior Ct. 302 at 305 . In this case the referee and the board found that the claimant had failed to sustain his burden of proof after two hearings. … In making its findings the board need not accept even uncontradicted testimony as true. Zimmiski v. Lehigh Valley Coal Company, 200 Pa. Superior Ct. 524 and Berdy v. Glen Alden Corporation, 202 Pa. Superior Ct. 525 .

Tuttle Unemployment Compensation Case

160 Pa. Super. 46 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Oct 28, 1946

Layton v. Unemployment *48 Compensation Board of Review, 156 Pa. Superior Ct. 225, 226 , 40 A. 2d 125 ; Horn v. Lehigh Valley R. Co., 274 Pa. 42, 44 , 117 A. 409 . See, also, Horton v. … They support the conclusion that the running of the statute was not tolled, and they sustain the decision of the board in dismissing claimant’s appeal. Claimant relies principally upon Layton v.

Farris v. Swetts

158 Pa. Super. 645 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Mar 5, 1946

In Robb et al. v. … In either event the board is acting capriciously. *650 In Miller v. School District of North Versailles Township, 123 Pa.